TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 1102
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce to the Third Member: '(1) (a) Whether the issue of service of notice/s u/s. 17(1) of the Act is at all relevant, i.e., in the given facts & circumstances of the case? (b) Whether, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the material date for the purpose of levy of penalty in the instant case/s is the date of issue of notice u/s. 17(1) and not the date of its' service, i.e., considering that the time for furnishing the return/s suo motu by the assessee/s had since expired? (2) (a) Whether the service of notice u/s. 17(1) could be in law at all objected to in the instant proceedings, considering that the assessee/s participated in, and raised no objection qua the same during, the assessment proceedings, culminating in an assessment/s u/s. 16(3) r/w s. 17(1), i.e., in view of section 42 of the Act? (b) Can, in any case of the matter, the finality of the assessment as framed, i.e., u/s. 16(3) r/w s. 17(1), be agitated or disturbed in the current proceedings? (3) Whether the return/s, as furnished, including conduct, can be regarded as voluntary, i.e., either in law or on facts? (4)Whether the assessee/s has, or has not, effectively rebutted the statutory presu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons. 5. Considering the facts of the cases and the proposed questions referred to me for decision in accordance with law, I am of the view that all the above questions framed by both the Ld Members of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench necessarily revealed the only question to be answered is, 'whether in the facts and circumstances of the case levy of penalty in three cases u/s 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act is justified or not?' Ld Judicial Member in his proposed order has noted that as the issues in these appeals are identical and similar, therefore, for the sake of brevity and convenience, Ld counsel for assessee argued WTA No. 02/Asr/2018, i.e., in the case of Sh. Ravinder Aggarwal (supra) and hence, facts in that case have been taken into consideration for the decisions of all the three appeals. 6. The facts noted by the authorities below as well as by the Ld Members of the Tribunal are not in dispute that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the I. T. Act was conducted on the residential premises of the assessee at Jammu on 4th September, 2013 and assessment proceedings were completed u/s 143(3) of the I. T. Act. Later on, during the perusal of the assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....turn of wealth voluntary. The affidavit filed by the assessee was not rebutted. The return of wealth filed belatedly was accepted by the AO at the same wealth. The assessee was not aware of the fact that the return of wealth was liable to be filed. Whatever case law has been referred to by the Ld Accountant Member in his proposed order are not applicable to the case and having not been brought to the notice of the assessee. He has submitted that the case law cited by the Ld Accountant Member relates to the imposition of penalty when concealment is detected by the department though assessee has revised return whereas wealth tax return were filed by assessee voluntarily. These cases also relate to the calculation of the limitation. He has further submitted that cash was found during the course of search which were disclosed in the wealth tax return and accepted by the AO, therefore, it would not be a case of levy of the penalty. 8. On the other hand Ld DR relied upon orders of the authorities below and submitted that assessee was aware of the fact that wealth is taxable on which tax is payable but the assessee did not file return of wealth deliberately within the period of limitatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... date the search as well as on valuation date, i.e., 31st March, 2013. These facts therefore clearly proved that assessee admitted to have taxable wealth on valuation date, i.e., 31st March, 2013 for assessment year under appeal. However, no return have been filed by assessee for net wealth by due date for filing of the wealth tax return u/s 14 of the Wealth Tax Act or last date extended up to 31st March, 2016 u/s 15 of the Wealth Tax Act, despite assessee was having net wealth above the taxable limit. The return of wealth filed by the assessee on 25th April, 2016 was thus could not be considered if the return of wealth was filed u/s 14 or 15 of the Wealth Tax Act. There is no other provision for filing of the return of wealth beyond the period of limitation. Thus, the return of wealth filed after 31st March, 2016 was non-est so it could not be considered as return of wealth filed voluntarily. The notice u/s 17(1) of the Wealth Tax Act did not return back which was sent through registered post therefore presumption is that it has served upon assessee in ordinary course of business. The assessee never disputed the service of the notice u/s 17(1) of the Wealth Tax Act before the Asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e if accepted will result in the conclusion that the Revenue department will be helpless in imposing the penalty in such case. That certainly cannot be effect of the legal provisions. Again the assessee would completely escape the penalty, if he does not at all file the return in response to notice under the Wealth Tax Act. The expression 'concealed the particulars of assets' have not been defined of the Wealth Tax Act. However, the word 'conceal' would mean 'hide or keep secret'. The word 'conceal' is con + celare which implies to hide. It means to hide or withdraw from observation, to cover or keep from side, to prevent the discovery of, to withhold knowledge of. The offence of concealment is thus a direct attempt to hide an item of income or a portion thereof from the knowledge of the Revenue authorities. In the aforesaid case, it is clear that despite the assessees one aware of the fact that they have taxable asset as per Wealth Tax Act during the financial year itself and particularly on valuation date, i.e., on 31st March, 2013, the assessees were under obligation to file return of wealth within the period of limitation provided under the Act or extended period up to 31st Mar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings. The law does not provide that when an assessee makes a voluntary disclosure of his concealed income, he has to be absolved from penalty. The Assessing Officer should not be carried away by the plea of the assessee such as "voluntary disclosure", "buy peace", "avoid litigation", "amicable settlement", to explain away its conduct. The question is whether the assessee has offered any explanation for concealment of particulars of income of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.' It was further held: 'Held, affirming the decision of the High Court, that the assessee had only stated that it had surrendered the additional sum of Rs. 40,74,000 to avoid litigation, buy peace and to channelize the energy and resources towards productive work and to make amicable settlement with the Income-tax Department. The statute did not recognize those types of defences under Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The surrender of income in this case was not voluntary in the sense that the offer of surrender was made in view of detection by the Assessing Officer in the search conducted in the sister concern of the assessee. The survey....